Jump to content

New Alliances?


crazyisraelie
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I dunno but I think it's because everybody in CN wants to be an emperor, and the best way to do it is just make your own alliance.

A year from now I see every member of CN being emperor of an alliance in which they are the only member. The Face of CN as we know it is rapidly changing!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno but I think it's because everybody in CN wants to be an emperor, and the best way to do it is just make your own alliance.

A year from now I see every member of CN being emperor of an alliance in which they are the only member. The Face of CN as we know it is rapidly changing!!

Then all the one man alliances will form blocs. Eventually these blocs will grow to incorporate hundreds of alliances and have their own government structures. They'll require member alliances to be exclusive to their blocs. Then the blocs will sign inter-bloc treaties and eventually we'll see blocs of blocs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd say this DIY attitude is going to continue, but people are eventually going to realize that running a good alliance is a lot harder than they ever thought. This is why most new micro-alliances either disband or end up merging, either cause things are getting too chaotic or too boring.

Simply put, Pacifica was not built in a day.

Edited by capitalC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a general question for all CNers.

Why do you think politically, there is an increase(New ones everyday) in alliances? Also do you think this trend with continue or die out?

Two large effects coming together. The first is it's now summer giving the college students and high schoolers in the game a lot more free time to make an attempt at it. Building an alliance takes an awful lot of work. There seems to be a general explosion of new alliances at the beginning of summer but I don't have more than two data points to back that up since this is a relatively young game still.

The second is that we see new alliances forming after each war from both sides of the conflict. Wars tend to provide heated conflict within alliances that can cause political fractures. In the lead up to a large war a lot of alliances that would normally form, hold off until the air clears so there is also a bit of a back-log of alliances that were actually planned ahead of time popping out.

Assuming these two effects dominate the explosion of new alliances that we're seeing we'd expect to see the number of them taper off slowly. There might still be some new ones in the works that have yet to DoE but we should be out of the worst/best of it.

Good, well many will be disbanded but there would be a few gems in it.

I'd guess we'll see a lot of collapses and mergers once the fall gets started. I think we can expect some real gems, I also think that the mergers may boost some older smaller or middle-tier alliances up into new prominence. In the meantime it's likely to be a bit frustrating to be around the OWF

Cuz everyone wants to be the next badass alliance. also cuz there are a lot of power hungry ppl in CN who wanna start an alliance so they can be gov

Many of the people founding these new alliances are or were at once point government. In some rarer cases in the top government of some of the biggest alliances around. So while a lot of people who go on to join and build the membership of these alliance may fit the bill of disgruntled general members wanting a chance at the helm, I would argue the people actually starting the alliances are motivated from somewhere else, possibly a bit less avaricious.

My two cents. Everybody is free, and some I'm sure will, to disagree.

Edit: Typo

Edited by PhysicsJunky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think most people realize that the trade off for an increase in fun when running an alliance is an even larger increase in stress and tedium. The most frequent topic of conversation in any gathering of alliance leaders I've ever been in tends to be how much we hate our jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people want to have a say about the direction the alliance is taking ,so to own an alliance is a solution too.

Everyone would be in TOP or MK, or somewhere along those lines, were that true.

Also, I did it because I have friends in this one. :o CONSPIRACY!!11!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think most people realize that the trade off for an increase in fun when running an alliance is an even larger increase in stress and tedium. The most frequent topic of conversation in any gathering of alliance leaders I've ever been in tends to be how much we hate our jobs.

Having been in both positions I understand where you're coming from. However if the job was so bad then there wouldn't be so many people clamoring for it, even if some of them are mistaken. In many larger alliances there are generally people who have been playing the game two or three years and ready to step up if given the chance.

Don't get me wrong, there are a lot of people who have no clue how much work is involved and think it's a lot more glamorous than it really is. On the flip side of there is no way that the total utility of the job is negative or leaders would be quitting in mass, this is a game after all and not some vital activity. So while those who have never been in the upper leadership of an alliance may overestimate how much fun it it would be it still is apparently worthwhile to some group of people.

I think in the smaller alliances you see both extremes, people who have been really involved in the sort of tedium you're talking about and people who are just finding out how hard it is to run an alliance, and about every group in the middle.

I guess my point is that it would be just as inappropriate to lump all the new smaller alliances together as it would be be lump all of the sanctioned alliances together. There is a fair amount of diversity. And while these smaller alliances seem like both a nuisance on the OWF to some, and a drain on their alliance's member counts to others, it's all part of a natural cycle and will come to is Darwinian conclusion. It's really the best mechanism this game has for moving large chunks of people from fading alliances to upcoming alliances. Keeps things fresh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a general question for all CNers.

Why do you think politically, there is an increase(New ones everyday) in alliances? Also do you think this trend with continue or die out?

Players love posting DOEs with bad spelling and incorrect grammar, and then posting a merger notice in 2 weeks time. It's what all the cool kids are doing.

Hopefully it dies out as the weather cools...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A year from now I see every member of CN being emperor of an alliance in which they are the only member. The Face of CN as we know it is rapidly changing!!

That'll make alliance wars less than interesting!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think most people realize that the trade off for an increase in fun when running an alliance is an even larger increase in stress and tedium. The most frequent topic of conversation in any gathering of alliance leaders I've ever been in tends to be how much we hate our jobs.

I agree with this, but in my opinion, it depends on the alliance that you're a leader in. As a government member in my alliance, I can't really complain about my job because my members are always there to back me up. I feel more like a member and a friend than a higher-up.

I have a general question for all CNers.

Why do you think politically, there is an increase(New ones everyday) in alliances? Also do you think this trend with continue or die out?

Personally, I think that the increase of alliances isn't necessarily political. Just 2 days ago, a Minister of Economics from another alliance told me that he wants to create an alliance because he wants to own one. That's pretty selfish. An alliance is owned by all of its members. However, I understand that in some cases, a member really can't make a difference because of the leaders and/or membership. In this situation, they'd probably leave to start an alliance, and basing it on their beliefs.

EDIT: I think this trend will always continue, but it doesn't mean that these new alliances won't disband. Some people will realize how hard it is to run an alliance and call it quit. Pure selfishness doesn't make a successful alliance... you also need to be a good leader. :P To top that, you also need the right kind of members. Even good leaders will have to call it quit.

Edited by Star Gazing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ongoing proliferation of alliances has been the trend for the last three years. (Albeit, it has gained some considerable momentum in the last year and a half). I fully expect it to continue.

These alliances formed for the very same reasons many of us founded our own alliances: community or want of power or economic growth or to just have some fun in their own unique way.

Quick edit: And they fail for the same reasons: lack of organization or lack of interest or foreign domination or the trauma of war.

Edited by Dan123123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason there are so many new alliances is because there aren't any original ones. Unfortunately, members are stretched thin and the remotely original concepts have no room to take off while even the majority of the new alliances remain the exact same product under a different label.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many people who choose to make alliances were previous high-up government officials in larger, older alliances. The main reason they choose to create a new alliance is because they wanted change in their old alliance (most of the time, at least that I have seen in my CN experience is that one or two senior alliance members do feel that the alliance belongs solely for them. This creates a hierarchy that is difficult to break.). These people who do create alliances have tried to change the former system but ultimately failed due to old procedures in the alliance or senior members who are not willing to try the new change. If their alliance was so great, they wouldn't have even thought about leaving (especially if they enjoyed the government position they probably held).

With that, I do agree that there are going to be a lot of mergers in the next few weeks as the end of summer nears. A new alliance is a lot of work and is definitely not a one man job. I've seen new alliances either thrive shortly after their DoE or fail and result in a merger due to lack of activity. Only time will tell which will happen, but I have a feeling CN will return to normal after this war dies down and school resumes in the fall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The power hungry people are the ones that form an alliance by themselves.

Most form an alliance with friends looking to try something new and different together. They run the shots and they hope to reap the benefits.

Most of the current new alliances will not make it and will later disband or disappear completely.

Even though many have formed lately a few have disbanded as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...